Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Akhenaten]

The lack of evidence in here has created a huge echo.

 

[Mister Earl]

Just popping in to see if there's been any evidence brought forward yet. Hrm. Nope.

 

[UTLonghorn]

Just popping in to see if there's been any evidence brought forward yet. Hrm. Nope.

Because the bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, the New Testament writers told the truth. Geez! Will anything convince you heathens?

 

[joobz]

From DOC's other thread:

Doc sent me the following private msg:
"You implied you want non-subjective Christian Evidence in my thread in the Religion section: Read post #13104 in my Evidence thread in the History and Literature forum. And if you live in the US read Chapter 11 of this link All the Best, DOC"
I didn't imply Doc. I demanded it directly. Your post #13104 is full of the same appeals to informal logical fallacies and specious reasoning that I referred to before as subjective - appealing to you because you already believe what you believe.

DOC,
we have been asking for objective (aka non-subjective) evidence for quite some time now. Your seem to be laboring under the idea that you already have. However, we have provided clear counterarguments why this isn't the case.

You are now obliged to either accept those arguments or counter them with detailed arguments. You have not yet done so.

And for the record, you have convinced no one of the truth of the bible.

 

[refamat]

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god". This evidence of rapid growth and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ (31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors. If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

hey DOC, here's some facts...the tomb used to put yeshua in was owned by a joseph the merchant, but there is really nothing known about joseph the carpenter. joseph the merchant took yeshua on business trips, joseph the carpenter taught him what? hindu legend holds yeshua taught his religion and died in Kashmir (also known as heaven on earth), getting there is a long climb uphill or ascending. that whole sour wine bit smells of a trick to induce a death like unconsciousness, easily treated. he descended into hell, well, the valley of hinon (also known as hell in a anglicized greek) was not far away and one could hide there because no soldier or prisst would enter the place because of the garbage and lepers. good place to recover.
unstand most scholar agree that the term used was "he gave up the ghost" which could mean death, unconsciousness from fainting or coma or fever. so don't get all righteous with what old yeshua did when the story was most likely fabricated and executed to protect all involved, who don't appear to be found in that town after the event, they all hit the road dude and ran like rabbits...and, since they needed a living, they taught what they knew and recounted a story adjusted to impress and convert and make people hand over food and money.

 

[refamat]

You should also understand that the gospels were all produced by coptics and gnostics since none of the original "writings" have been found from the "authors" and it is known that Mathew never wrote a single word of "his" gospels which were penned by some self proclaimed bishop's scribe. and that all of the nt is from the memory of another bishop who says he was there during the compiling of the first bible at the 1st council of nicaea which was later lost without any copies being made. so, from a christian point of view, the devil could have snuck in, destroyed the original, and when the bishops convened to remake it many years later, snuck in again and gave his version just to have fun.

 

[kmortis]

hey DOC, here's some facts...the tomb used to put yeshua in was owned by a joseph the merchant, but there is really nothing known about joseph the carpenter. joseph the merchant took yeshua on business trips, joseph the carpenter taught him what? hindu legend holds yeshua taught his religion and died in Kashmir (also known as heaven on earth), getting there is a long climb uphill or ascending. that whole sour wine bit smells of a trick to induce a death like unconsciousness, easily treated. he descended into hell, well, the valley of hinon (also known as hell in a anglicized greek) was not far away and one could hide there because no soldier or prisst would enter the place because of the garbage and lepers. good place to recover.
unstand most scholar agree that the term used was "he gave up the ghost" which could mean death, unconsciousness from fainting or coma or fever. so don't get all righteous with what old yeshua did when the story was most likely fabricated and executed to protect all involved, who don't appear to be found in that town after the event, they all hit the road dude and ran like rabbits...and, since they needed a living, they taught what they knew and recounted a story adjusted to impress and convert and make people hand over food and money.

You should also understand that the gospels were all produced by coptics and gnostics since none of the original "writings" have been found from the "authors" and it is known that Mathew never wrote a single word of "his" gospels which were penned by some self proclaimed bishop's scribe. and that all of the nt is from the memory of another bishop who says he was there during the compiling of the first bible at the 1st council of nicaea which was later lost without any copies being made. so, from a christian point of view, the devil could have snuck in, destroyed the original, and when the bishops convened to remake it many years later, snuck in again and gave his version just to have fun.

You have a lot of claims in there. Got any citations? I'm familiar with some of it, but a lot I've never run across before. Besides, if we're gonna demand that DOC cite his sources, it's only fair that we demand it of those on our side, right?

 

[carlitos]

From DOC's other thread:

After 15400050010399887+ posts on the subject, I am starting to find it charming that DOC can't (won't?) use the correct terminology for forum (system), ignore (block), thread (forum?), subforum (forum?), etc.

Thanks to Akhenaten for re-posting that video. I'm pretty skeptical about some of the parallels to other gods in there (Horus had 12 disciples?), but overall the message is pretty clear.

 

[refamat]

You have a lot of claims in there. Got any citations? I'm familiar with some of it, but a lot I've never run across before. Besides, if we're gonna demand that DOC cite his sources, it's only fair that we demand it of those on our side, right?

hey kmortis, yep there are some out there..maybe not on the web though. the point here is that biblical scholars present information from what they and archaeologists find, and the world ignores most of it.
gnostics and coptics were the only christians before 325 C.E., no doubt about it, all the bishops that showed up at the council of nicaea in 325 were such. but, easily, wikianswers does point to some information on the gospels:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_gospels

and elsewhere on gospels ;

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895

http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html

 

[DOC]

That's your opinion. A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

From the article "Pliny the Younger on Christians" by Brian Tubbs

"For one, Pliny {the Roman governor in Asia Minor} confirms that there were Christians who believed Christ to be "as a god" as early as AD 112. Common sense would agree that Christians believed this earlier than AD 112, for it had to take some time to get to Pliny's notice and for him to feel compelled to even pay this religion attention - let alone start executing its adherents.
<Snip>
But even if one stubbornly refuses to accept that assumption, all one has to do is point to the Roman historian Suetonius who confirms the presence of Christians in Rome as early as the late 40s AD and their willingness to die for their beliefs as early as 64 AD. Case closed.
It is absurd to say that Jesus' followers didn't embrace his divinity in the first century. There is strong, non-biblical evidence to demonstrate that there were first and second century people who believed Jesus was God and were willing to die for that belief."

http://www.suite101.com/blog/briantubbs/pliny_the_younger_on_christians

You've become wholly incoherent.

To a post which stated-- quite factually --that christianity became wide spread when Emperor Constantine became christian you said that christians were killed by earlier emperors. When I asked the very simple question "What's your point?", You respond with a quote that asserts early christians believed in Jesus' divinity.

This is honestly nothing but a series of disjointed arguments. There may be a logic behind them, but you've failed to show it.

As such, I ask again, "What's your point?" How does any of this relate to the OP?

I think it hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say my post above is not evidence or related to the OP. I can see where you might say it is not enough evidence, but to say it is not evidence or not related to the OP shows some skeptics are totally incapable of admitting anything is evidence and I think that hurts some skeptics credibility of being intellectually unbiased.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think it hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say my post above is not evidence or related to the OP. I can see where you might say it is not enough evidence, but to say it is not evidence or not related to the OP shows some skeptics are totally incapable of admitting anything is evidence and I think that hurts some skeptics credibility of being intellectually unbiased.

What would you say to evidence for other religions that is equal to what you've provided in this thread? Do you suffer cognitive dissonance at all?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think it hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say my post above is not evidence or related to the OP. I can see where you might say it is not enough evidence, but to say it is not evidence or not related to the OP shows some skeptics are totally incapable of admitting anything is evidence and I think that hurts some skeptics credibility of being intellectually unbiased.

DOC, it hurts YOUR credibility not to admit that evidence of BELIEF is not evidence of TRUTH.

GB

 

[John Jones]

I think it hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say my post above is not evidence or related to the OP. I can see where you might say it is not enough evidence, but to say it is not evidence or not related to the OP shows some skeptics are totally incapable of admitting anything is evidence and I think that hurts some skeptics credibility of being intellectually unbiased.

You have never presented any evidence that the new testament authors told the truth. You have only presented evidence that people believe they told the truth.

This has been explained to you a dozen times at least, but somehow it just doesn't sink in.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

...(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away)

There's no evidence that this even happened...

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold and the author of the 3 Volume "History of Rome" would disagree, in fact he said there was more historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ than any other fact in history up to the point he said it. I think a problem in this thread is a lot of people don't understand what "historical" evidence means.

 

[joobz]

I think it hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say my post above is not evidence or related to the OP. I can see where you might say it is not enough evidence, but to say it is not evidence or not related to the OP shows some skeptics are totally incapable of admitting anything is evidence and I think that hurts some skeptics credibility of being intellectually unbiased.

You completely ignored my point and are again speaking past me.
How does your posts actually, in any way, represent responses to the posts you quote?
Requoting yourself only supports my position, that you are not actually responding to people's points but merely throwing dung to see what sticks.


Now, to your point:
willingness to die is not evidence that someone was divine. It isn't even evidence that someone believed someone was divine. It only is evidence that they had strong convictions for their beliefs. It isn't evidence for what those beliefs were or if they were true.

Further, this thread is about the "AUTHOR'S" of the Gospels. Not christians in general.


So, my point stands. Your post isn't, in any way, support of the OP argument. If I am wrong, feel free to provide the missing premises which links your post to the OP. If you can do that, I will be happy to withdraw my statement that it is not related to the OP.

 

[joobz]

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold and the author of the 3 Volume "History of Rome" would disagree, in fact he said there was more historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ than any other fact in history up to the point he said it. I think a problem in this thread is a lot of people don't understand what "historical" evidence means.

He was wrong.



ETA:
please see my review of Arnold below.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6233286#post6233286

 

[Hokulele]

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold and the author of the 3 Volume "History of Rome" would disagree, in fact he said there was more historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ than any other fact in history up to the point he said it. I think a problem in this thread is a lot of people don't understand what "historical" evidence means.

And at least one person doesn't understand what "hyperbole" means.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by DOC

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold and the author of the 3 Volume "History of Rome" would disagree, in fact he said there was more historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ than any other fact in history up to the point he said it. I think a problem in this thread is a lot of people don't understand what "historical" evidence means.

You left out the part that Thomas Arnold was a professor in the early 19th century, and that he was an Anglican who also wrote Principles of Church Reform which influenced the "Broad Church Movement" (he hated "High" Anglicanism because it was too Catholic).

Hardly an unbiased historian, not that it would matter if he actually had any more evidence than is available today (for the veracity of the NT), which he didn't and you don't either.

GB

 

[joobz]

You left out the part that Thomas Arnold was a professor in the early 19th century, and that he was an Anglican who also wrote Principles of Church Reform which influenced the "Broad Church Movement" (he hated "High" Anglicanism because it was too Catholic).

Hardly an unbiased historian, not that it would matter if he actually had any more evidence than is available today (for the veracity of the NT), which he didn't and you don't either.

GB

Arnold is also famously known for supporting religious education over scientific.

He is famously quoted as writing:

"Rather than have it [physical sciences] the principal thing in my son's mind, I would gladly have him think that the sun went round the earth, and that the stars were so many spangles set in the bright blue firmament."
Yup. He would rather people believe known lies and be Christian than know truth.
Not a very reliable source when it comes to religion, is he DOC?

But it gets better.
if you go to the book, Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold (7th ed) in google books and search for Greenhill. Go to page 376.

You'll find the complete source of the quote. Which continues:

"Surely the one thing needful for a Christian and an Englishman to study is Christian and moral and political philosophy, and then we should see our way a little more clearly without falling into Judaism, or Toryism, or Jacobinism, or any other ism whatever."

 

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

...(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away)

There's no evidence that this even happened...

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold and the author of the 3 Volume "History of Rome" would disagree, in fact he said there was more historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ than any other fact in history up to the point he said it. I think a problem in this thread is a lot of people don't understand what "historical" evidence means.

There's something wrong with your quote, DOC. The little arrow linking back to Elizabeth I's quote is missing which means we can't check back to make sure you're quoting people honestly. The fact is, you appear to be quoting someone called Elizabeth 1, who, unlike Elizabeth I, isn't even a member here.

The fact is, it was neither Elizabeth 1 nor Elizabeth I who originally posted what you claim to be quoting, was it, DOC? And the wording of the quote has been altered from the original too, hasn't it DOC?

You should fix it up in case someone thinks you're being dishonest. You know how important appearances are to some people.


Just to help you out, this is what it would have looked like without your hatchet job:

Just so no one misses a word of this argument:

(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away)

There's no evidence that this even happened. Someone was going to provide some, as I recall. Do you know anything about that?

Quite different isn't it, DOC? Did you know that you can get in trouble with the Moderators for doing things like that?